posted at 1:40 pm on December 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Via CNS News and our friend and Townhall colleague Greg Hengler, Nancy Pelosi lectured America on macroeconomics yesterday by insisting that an extension of unemployment benefits would “make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.” Greg recalled a similar claim from Pelosi about ObamaCare, and adds it to the end of Pelosi’s claim from yesterday:

“Christmas is 10 days away,” said Pelosi at a press briefing on Capitol Hill today. “The president and Democrats in Congress have been very clear. We’re not going home without enacting a payroll tax cut for America’s working families and extending unemployment insurance for millions of Americans.”

“The payroll tax cut that the president proposed would put $1,500 in the pockets of 160 million Americans,” she said. “The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.”

Pelosi did not name those “macroeconomic advisers.” She continued: “Again this is important because this is about the safety net not just for these individuals, but for our economic system that, in times of unemployment, we have a safety net and that is important.”

“Again, [not only] a safety net for individuals, but a safety net for the economy,” she said, “and again this money when received is immediately spent, it’s urgently needed, and injects demand into the economy, creating jobs.”

This is a fairly testable hypothesis. The last time Congress extended the jobless benefits was a year ago, in another crunch-time compromise between Republicans and Democrats on Pennsylvania Avenue. Since then, the economy has added about 1.5 million jobs — an average of 125,000 a month, which is only enough to keep up with population growth. Assuming that Pelosi’s correct and we subtract 600,000 from the 2011 numbers, the Obama adminstration’s economic policies would account for growth that falls well below that of population maintenance — at only 75,000 per month.

The number and the claim is absurd. Whatever short-term economic benefit arises from giving benefits to the unemployed is not enough to generate enough marketplace demand to create 600,000 jobs, nor would its absence be enough to eliminate 600,000 jobs, either. Its absence would probably force the long-term unemployed into part-time and low-paying jobs to maintain themselves, which would not only service much of that same demand, it would also not take capital from the future — where its absence will cost jobs. There are social and humanitarian reasons for providing unemployment benefits, but job creation and economic growth are not among them.

At least, though, we can say that the deal Pelosi makes here is much better than ObamaCare. That will cost $2 trillion in its first ten years, according to the CBO, which works out to five million dollars a job. Sheesh! Even Obama’s green-tech boondoggles have a better price-per-job than that. With the proposed extension of jobless benefits expected to add $44 billion, that works out to $110,000 per job … which is still a ridiculous figure, and shows why capital is used more efficiently when left in the marketplace.

Comments

Sometimes after she makes a statement and has that blinky deer in the headlight blank stare and pauses for a few seconds before going on? I wonder if she’s trying to recall what she just said and whether or not it made any sense. Or she’s waiting for applause or something. It’s just creepy.

Sadly, employers ultimately pay the price for this nonsense. UI is a direct tax to job creators based on payroll (in Texas, the cap is $9,000 per employee). We just received our audit and our rate increased from .78% to 4.52%. Kinda makes you want to run out and hire a bunch of people.

Please tell me that people are not this gullible. I just don’t know if I could take it.

The one thing that I want Pelosi to answer is: How does paying people to not work create jobs for those that do?

Wouldn’t it just be easier to put them on the federal payroll as being on retainer? I mean that would make it easy to say things like “…but cutting spending will increase unemployment.” and it would make it easy to extend the unemployment when the conservatives take over. We will cut the spending and they will file a new unemployment claim.

I mean is it me or what? She is looking more and more like the Witch of the West. I mean, I can see her saying, “And you little dog too!” every time I see those bulging eyes and that stretched out face.

I find it incredible that her constituents afford her even the slightest credibility.

rplat on December 16, 2011 at 2:44 PM

These are the same constituents who wanted to legally ban circumcision. As a product of her environment, it just doesn’t get any better for her. Hopefully, soon, she can be retired to the Pelosi vineyard.

“The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.”

Why does anyone listen to the most moronic and arguably evil woman ever to draw breath? Please, just gag her and throw her in a cell and stop pretending her job is to make sense or even do the right thing. Clearly she is incapable of either.

“Sometimes after she makes a statement and has that blinky deer in the headlight blank stare and pauses for a few seconds before going on? I wonder if she’s trying to recall what she just said and whether or not it made any sense. Or she’s waiting for applause or something. It’s just creepy.”

The “blinky” is what happens when you tell a “lie-y”. Even she doesn’t believe it. And she’s more amazed that no one blasts her for it while she’s speaking it. She’s like this all the time. She’s Captain Queeg.

I live in one of the poorer towns in one of the poorer states in America and there are jobs that we can’t fill, from minimum wage jobs at Dollar General to $12 per hour jobs at the prison that require no skills whatsoever. Why can’t we fill them? Because everyone is milking their unemployment benefits.

Why does anyone listen to the most moronic and arguably evil woman ever to draw breath?

Wolfmoon on December 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM

The democRats discriminate on neither race,gender, or intelligence. I believe it was Ann Coulter who said that the democRats have taken non-discrimination to its logical extreme by electing a retarded woman as Speaker of the House.

The only member of congress who may be dumber and less articulate that Ms. Pelosi is Barbara Boxer. Where do we get these dimb bulbs? Partly my fault though, I reside in the formerly great state of California (now “lead” by the dumb monk, Jerry Brown). We elect these morons.

I think Annunciata Pelosi might be on to something here. But, come on, Nanc, think BIG! Let’s borrow enough money from the Chinese to pay unemployment benefits to EVERYONE. We can say “American Pay for Americans,” or something. Unemployment will immediately go down to zero, no women will die on the floor, we won’t have to pass any more bills to see what is in them. Happy Days for all!

Of course, we’re gonna have to pawn Montana, Oklahoma and most of the Rocky Mountains to pay back China, but who cares when it’s Party Time?

Would like to post more, but I used too much toilet paper while wiping my Nancy Pelosi, and that, combined with the Pelosi’s I had deposited in the bowl, has backed up my home sewage system. Gotta work the plunger big-time. Later, amigos.

While I doubt anyone can by the 600,000 jobs bit. I do think considering the state of the economy and the job market benefits should be extended. Doesn’t seem right to cut them off when no jobs are being created.

funny, companies are on the hook for the cost of this when they fire or lay someone off. This money just does not come to being. Employers hate this idea because now they have to pay for a longer amount of time than they normally would. So all this does, is in fact make employers think twice about adding onto the staff because if they dont need the people down the road… they are on the hook for more cost.
This is not so much a issue for huge companies that have thousands of workers… what this hurt is what is our main driver in the workforce… the mom and pop small businesses where an added cost long term actually hurts them that much more in a garbage economy…

I do have one thing to say to Nancy… My job at work requires me to make sure that I kill the bacteria… why anyone would want to inject something like that into their body is beyond me. I am sure that all those injections have affected her brain… then again shes a liberal so it might just be natural.

$110,000 per job is fairly low for a job that lasts a full year, actually. The burden rates on employee pay can be pretty high when you need to consider health plans (if any), physical facilities, taxes, materials, and all the other incidental expenses companies have. Unless these were very low paying jobs $110,000 per job is not bad at all. Jobs that are temporary and particularly jobs that are seasonal in nature should not even be considered as jobs created unless you offset that figure with jobs ended or destroyed.

Also note the slight of hand with counting jobs created as anybody accepting new employment. If somebody else had left that job then no net job creation happened. And if the person taking that job had moved from another job you could even have a net one job deletion.

Remember, these are government politically manipulated numbers to make a terrible situation look merely bad.

Actually, that while there may be a small amount of truth in what she says, I don’t think she realises why. Any money put into the economy can create some jobs. I think they use a multiplier of 1/2 to 2 jobs for government type money and 4-5 jobs for private money. The redicularity is that this woman evidently believes that keeping people unemployed longer creates jobs. Actually, they would be just maintaining current jobs in the 1/2 – 2 multiplier range by maintaining the unemployment payments. But to confabulate unemployment with creating jobs in any manner is considered by most to be moronic and ludicrous.

I think the real question would be how many more jobs would be created by forcing or encouraging people to go back to work by witholding unemployment than would be maintained by the dribble of money into the economy by the government for unemployment?

She is still the idiot that all of the above statements say. Still isn’t this extension unconstitutional? After all when the employee and employer contributed to it as insurance, that is one thing, but now when they are accessioning new taxes on the general public for the benefit of some at the expense of others in need. That’s just not right. The wife and I are self employed. Last year we took a bad hit on income, lost our savings, investments, house and had to sell our cars. Not one red cent comes our way from the government yet they have the nerve to raise OUR taxes to give to some one doing nothing for it but to vote these fools in to office. Mark my word, we are at the start of the 4 year revolution, if the people of this country do not take back control in November and instead let business as usual continue, than there will be the falling of the USA starting in December 2012.

How insane does one need to be to take a dollar from a business to give 50 cents to an unemployed person so the unemployed person can then go into the store and buy something for 10 cents rung up by the working person who ultimately lost the original dollar from his paycheck?

A Democrat talking about business and economics is like an 8 year old talking about Nuclear Physics. They both have about the same level of experience and understanding. Unfortunately, their growing constituency consists of similarly well informed ‘8 year olds’…many of whom are currently occupying Zuccotti Park.

While I doubt anyone can by the 600,000 jobs bit. I do think considering the state of the economy and the job market benefits should be extended. Doesn’t seem right to cut them off when no jobs are being created.

iidvbii on December 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Then you pay for it.

Not trying to be snarky, but I’ve paid enough for people to sit around not working. My sympathy for their plight ends when they start enslaving me (forcing me to pay for their liesure time). This doesn’t just apply to the unemployment situation either, it’s just the most egregious example going right now.